Download Rethinking Power Relations in Critical/Cultural Studies: A Dialectical

This article was downloaded by: [Susana Martinez Guillem]
On: 16 October 2013, At: 07:21
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Review of Communication
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rroc20
Rethinking Power Relations in
Critical/Cultural Studies: A Dialectical
(Re)Proposal
Susana Martínez Guillem
Published online: 15 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Susana Martínez Guillem (2013) Rethinking Power Relations in Critical/
Cultural Studies: A Dialectical (Re)Proposal, Review of Communication, 13:3, 184-204, DOI:
10.1080/15358593.2013.843716
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.843716
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
The Review of Communication
Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2013, pp. 184–204
Rethinking Power Relations in
Critical/Cultural Studies:
A Dialectical (Re)Proposal
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Susana Martínez Guillem
This essay argues for the need to rethink dialectics as part of our understanding of
power relations, and as a fundamental component of critical/cultural approaches in
Communication Studies. As a first step in this project, I will critique the main
contributions by Michel Foucault, highlighting his influential theorization of discourse,
knowledge and power as intrinsically related constructs, as well as how this perspective
has enabled the revisiting of other keywords in critical theory—such as Gramsci’s
“hegemony.” I will then (re)introduce the notion of dialectics as theorized in the work
of Antonio Gramsci and Raymond Williams. My goal is to emphasize underestimated
aspects of these authors’ contributions that, in my opinion, may help us construct
alternative starting points for a critical/cultural project in communication scholarship
and, more specifically, for a theory of power that can create the space needed to
account for people’s (in)capability to overcome adverse social conditions.
Keywords: Antonio Gramsci, critical/cultural studies, dialectics, power relations,
Raymond Williams
“It is impossible to discuss communication or culture in our society without in the
end coming to discuss power.”1
Starting Points: Power, Theory, and Change
This essay argues for the need to rethink dialectics as part of our understanding of
power relations, and as a fundamental component of critical/cultural approaches to
Susana Martínez Guillem is at Department of Communication & Journalism, The University of New Mexico.
The author would like to thank Marco Briziarelli and the anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this work. A previous version of this manuscript was presented as the top paper in
the Communication Theory and Research Interest Group at the Western States Communication Association
annual meeting in February, 2012. Correspondence to: Susana Martínez Guillem, Department of
Communication & Journalism, MSCO3 2240 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001,
U.S.A. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1535-8593 (online) © 2013 National Communication Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.843716
Rethinking Power Relations
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
2
185
communication. The exigency for such a project, in my view, stems from a
persistent paradox present in much of the work currently contributing to the
development of this, by now, well-established perspective in our discipline. Thus, on
the one hand, a foundational motto for communication scholars interested in critical
examinations of inter/cultural practices is the need to expose or uncover the
mechanisms through which power operates in societies.3 Based on this, these
accounts often present intellectual and political intervention in such processes as a
way to foster general social (good) changes. As Halaulani and Nakayama put it in
reference to critical intercultural communication: As “organic intellectuals” […] we
must navigate through and stay true to the highest quality of analyzing power and
paving the way to transgress and break down that with which we interrogate.”4
However, I would argue that this strand of scholarship often relies on an
understanding of societal processes that strongly limits what can be said or
envisioned with regards to people’s (in)capability to overcome adverse social
conditions. The roots of this paradox, I would argue, can and should be explored
by examining the ways in which the study of power relations has relied on, while at
the same time producing, a “selective tradition”5 mediating the reception of critical
and cultural theory in communication studies in important ways. Through this
mediating process, the work of authors such as Michel Foucault is often invoked
against the background of a “received” and reductionist understanding of Marxist
approaches that, as Cloud points out, tends to “misunderstand the dialectical
relationship between economics and consciousness, confusing dialectics with crude
economic determinism.”6
As a result, the study, in communication, of how power relations permeate all
kinds of inter/cultural practices has often taken a particular, “skeptical” shape that
refuses to establish clear differences between “power up and power down.”7 In spite
of its normalized status, I would argue that the unproblematic embracement of this
understanding of power is linked to partial readings of a series of theoretical
constructs that, first of all, tend to disregard their dialectical and materialist aspects
as outdated explanatory routes, and second, are not always self-reflective of the
practical implications of this move.
This paper aims at intervening in this selective tradition by disrupting it, tracing
and highlighting the main features of the intellectual trajectory that have taken us to
the present moment, and in the process identifying those elements have been
emphasized and, by implication, those that have not been considered essential for the
study of power relations in critical/cultural approaches to communication. As Hay
argues, in a context where “the work of historicizing and mapping communication
research and theory is seldom front and center of most studies about communication,” contributions to a critical/cultural perspective necessarily involve “a reflexivity
about the conditions and institutional/disciplinary regimes of intellectual and
academic work.”8
My argument will proceed as follows: I will start by concisely reviewing the turn to
discourse as a foundational feature in critical/cultural scholarship, addressing how
Michel Foucault’s framework—especially in its later, “genealogical” stage—has often
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
186 S. Martínez Guillem
been (mis)appropriated in this literature as the panacea to account for power-related
dynamics, even allowing a revisiting of other influential notions for critical/cultural
work, such as Gramsci’s “hegemony”—a move that, in my view, has set important
limits to the phenomena that we study, as well as to how we study them.
I will then attempt to offer what I see as a more comprehensive conceptualization
of power relations, arguing that a grounding in people’s experiences, but also the
continuous relation between these experiences and the social whole, are preferable
starting points for a critical/cultural project in communication that can create the
space needed to envision and account for change. As I put forward this argument, I
will critique what I see as an overskeptical, ultimately paralyzing aspect of Foucault’s
framework, drawing on the work of two authors that, in my opinion, have not been
adequately and/or systematically incorporated into critical/cultural approaches in our
discipline: Antonio Gramsci and Raymond Williams.
Through a discussion of some of these authors’ contributions, mainly found in the
notions of hegemony and cultural materialism, I will argue for a necessary
complication of dialectics, and thus for an effective theory of power relations that
accounts for the materiality of people’s experiences, seeing these as contradictory and
intrinsically related to historical processes. In closing, I suggest that our goal as
critical/cultural scholars should be to collaborate in the political project of not only
describing and understanding those experiences, but ultimately incorporating an
explanatory dimension to our analyses that enables concrete political intervention.
This project is, therefore, mostly concerned with the history of ideas, and more
specifically, with revisiting some of those ideas as they were developed by different
thinkers, as well as considering how they have (not) been taken up by some
communication scholars as they developed a critical/cultural project across particular
areas of study.9 This, at a first glance, would seem to be at odds with a commonsense
understanding of what a critical stance entails since, as I mentioned, for many
scholars contributing to a critical project, intervening in “real” social issues is seen as
a primary concern. However, as I will try to show in this paper, the practice of
critique is intrinsically linked with theoretical reflection. In other words, if we want to
know where our intervention needs to start and what its consequences may be, we
also need a deep understanding of the functioning of the processes we want to affect.
My goal in this essay will thus be to bring us closer to a more explicit kind of
knowledge about some of these processes.
Discursively Turning, away from What? The Selective Tradition and
Critical/Cultural Communication Scholarship
In her seminal 1994 essay, Dana Cloud addressed what she saw as a “significant and
growing minority of critical scholars” who, according to her, were at the time
enthusiastically embracing the “poststructuralist shift towards discourse theory,” and
thus proposing “the materiality of discourse hypothesis” as a way to overcome the
limitations of idealist and economicist approaches to social organization.10 Almost
20 years later, it is probably unproblematic to argue that what Cloud called a
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
187
“growing minority” is now a well-established critical mass in communication
scholarship in general and in critical/cultural studies in particular. Thus, a plethora
of analyses that highlight the constitutive nature of discourse have been welcome in
the last two decades and have come to dominate most discussions, not only amongst
critical rhetoricians, as Cloud pointed out, but also in broader critical/cultural
academic circles.11
In this section I will briefly retrace the so-called “discursive turn” in communication scholarship as intrinsically related to a mostly uninterrogated rejection of
“received” Marxist accounts of power relations, which are incessantly reduced in this
literature to economicist, exclusively class-oriented, and therefore rigid explanations
—an interpretation that, in my view, does not do justice to the complexities, nuances,
and competing histories within this tradition. Thus, a foundational assumption of
much contemporary critical/cultural scholarship is the implicit or explicit evaluation
of Marxism as “too narrow” and focusing only on “economic phenomena”—a
condemnation that has come to constitute the unavoidable preamble framing most
current analyses within this perspective.12
Needless to say, the work of Michel Foucault, and especially his more recent
theorization of discourse, power and knowledge as intrinsically related constructs,
has been key in facilitating this transition. However, I would argue that the very
notion of a “discursive turn” relies on a distortion of the perspective away from
which critical/cultural scholars are expected to direct their intellectual efforts. Thus,
introducing a binary between discourse-oriented accounts and so-called economicistic accounts of power relations has become a commonplace in much of our
critically oriented scholarship. This polarizing critique of what Raymond Williams
called a “received” version of Marxism is often seen as facilitating a more flexible
understanding of the locus of power, and thus more comprehensive accounts of the
possibilities to resist it.13
Rather than simply rejecting these assumptions, my goal in making them explicit is
also to reflect on the broader implications of this selective move. Specifically, I argue
that the turn away from (seen as) reductionist, absolutist, and “fixed” conceptualizations of power relations has often led to an equally absolutist “diffused” or “fluid”
understanding of the ways power operates in societies, where the capacity to act upon
reality is ultimately diminished by the fact that this action cannot take the form of a
specific, coherent and therefore strong enough aim. In what follows, I trace what I see
as two interrelated and important processes in the construction of this selective
critical/cultural tradition in communication: first, I briefly review Foucault’s
theoretical framework, with special attention to his theorizing of discourse and/as
power in his later, “genealogy” stage.14 I also problematize certain aspects of this
account, arguing that Foucault’s tempting call to avoid establishing causal relationships so readily answered by many critical/cultural scholars carries with it important
and ultimately paralyzing implications that are not always reflected upon. Second, I
discuss the pervasive embedding of such account of power relations in the ways
Gramsci’s notion of hegemony tends to be adopted in critical/cultural approaches
within communication.
188 S. Martínez Guillem
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
In the Beginning, There was Discourse: The Legacy of Michel Foucault
Foucault’s early writings were the result of his wrestling with different philosophical
approaches to language and meaning. As such, they evidence his rejection, on the one
hand, of the preclassical renaissance epistemology that saw language as a mere
reflection of an external, objective reality, and on the other hand, of the classical
Enlightenment epistemology of representation.15 For him, and along the lines of
Saussure’s work, a more useful starting point is located in signification practices.
Accordingly, Foucault theorized meaning as a product of the structure that constitutes the condition of possibility for its existence. Discourses, in this context,
comprise his “primary unit of analysis,” since they are seen as serving the primordial
function of constituting subjects by setting the limits within which those subjects
can exist, mainly through two interrelated processes: subjectification and objectification.16 Thus, in this account, discourse constitutes individuals as subjects and objects
at the same time. In other words, people are both created and constrained by the
discourses they inhabit.
In his later writings, Foucault progressively emphasized the fundamental link
between discourse, knowledge and power, seeing discourse as “a system of possibility
[that] makes possible a field of knowledge.”17 This, in its turn, situates discourse as a
product of power, since Foucault conceptualizes power and knowledge as mutually
constitutive. He thus rejects the idea of knowledge as a path towards an objective
“Truth” that can enable people to question—and potentially do away with—
particular material conditions. Rather, as an episteme of “objective reality,” the
discourse of a period that we embrace is a way to exercise power through the
constitution and governing of individual subjects. In this scenario, “discourses make
up specific systems of knowledge that allow for things to be (im)possible through
their limiting of our thinking and imagination.”18 For example, different disciplines
intrinsic to social institutions and practices will value some ideas and subjects and
exclude others, thus disciplining individuals by setting the limits of who can speak
and what can be spoken about.19
One of the most influential moves in Foucault’s discussion of power is his critique
of what he calls the “repressive hypothesis,” a way of understanding power that, he
argues, limits it to oppression and coercion. Instead, he contends, power is also
productive, since it produces the meaning of things, discourses and subjects.20 In this
view, power is relational rather than substantial. Thus, it cannot be possessed, used,
or imposed from above. The goal, then, becomes to develop an “analytics of power”
that uncovers how power is a “cluster of relations”—for example, the relations
between institutions and the rest of society, or among the different subjects who
participate in these societal processes.21 Identifying what power is, or where it comes
from is thus replaced in this account by an understanding and description of how it
operates on a specific, everyday basis. As Foucault puts it: “to understand power in its
materiality, its day to day operation, we must go to the level of the micropractices”
instead of trying to abstract power at the ideological and/or state levels.22
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
189
Foucault’s account certainly constituted a revolutionary contribution to the way
power relations were understood up until that moment. As Fraser states, his work
was key in ruling out inadequately narrow understandings of power and leading a
needed turn towards the “politics of everyday life”—a turn that arguably lies at the
core of most current critical/cultural work in communication.23 At the same time, the
often ambiguous understanding of discourse that emerges from many of Foucault’s
writings has arguably played a significant role in the different ways critical/cultural
scholars have embraced this notion—as well as, as I explain below, the turn towards
particular (re)readings of other critical theory keywords such as Gramsci’s
“hegemony.” Thus, even though discourse is often described in Foucault’s work as
encompassing both linguistic and nonlinguistic aspects, in practice this distinction is
far from emphasized in many Foucaltian-oriented analyses—including his own.
Some analysts of Foucault’s work object that he “never intended to isolate
discourse from the social practices that surround it,” and it may very well be that this
progression into an autonomous dimension was not Foucault’s intention, although it
seems to be an important way in which his considerations have been incorporated
into critical/cultural approaches in communication studies.24 As Cloud points out
with reference to critical rhetoricians, “discourses” nowadays tend to be studied with
little or no reference to the material conditions that influenced their production, and
the different struggles are located not “in the political or economic realms anymore,
but in those of the text.”25 Thus, disconnected from its specific structural constraints,
the notion of discourse has often been turned into an “immaterial and timeless
structure that exists in an autonomous fashion with respect to thought and matter,
which are articulated through relative senses of difference and identity.”26
Another important element of many critical/cultural applications of Foucault’s
work is the move from an identification of productive aspects in power relations
towards an understanding of power as always and only productive. This “entirely
productive view of power,” has been challenged as “the view that power necessarily
produces its own resistances or that it produces knowledges and discourses that are
themselves invariably productive.” Instead, and drawing on Foucault’s analyses,
scholars have argued that discourses such as those around sexuality did not
participate in the creation of particular sexual subjects on their own, but were
incited by agencies of power and ultimately confined to particular closed spaces
“presided by the institutions of the church or psychoanalysis.” In this context, and
importantly, “the voices of those who speak in this place, the voices of resistance, are
never heard.”27
Apart from these debatable, strong or weak interpretations of the roles of discourse
and power in Foucault’s writings, one could also argue for a progressive rejection of a
normative dimension in his work whose consequences have not always been critically
examined by critical/cultural scholars. Thus, within a genealogical Foucauldian
framework, the task of the analyst is restricted to the description of how subjects
come to be in a particular place and time. Accordingly, his analyses of different
cultural practices and institutions, such as those related to madness or sexuality, are
geared towards determining how specific discourses, as well as the different rules that
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
190 S. Martínez Guillem
govern them, are constituted in a society, that is, how different “discursive
formations” regulate social organization. Importantly, because of the constitutive
skepticism of all kinds of knowledge that informs this account, this kind of critique
can never be carried out within a normative framework; it is instead a critique of “a
form, a technique of power” through the emphasis on “mechanisms of subjection”
that Foucault considers “as important as mechanisms of exploitation and
domination.”28
Nancy Fraser provides a useful starting point to reflect on the implications of these
assumptions for the critical/cultural project. She strongly criticizes Foucault’s latest
notions of disciplinary power, biopower, or power/knowledge as based on “the
suspension of the standard modern liberal normative framework which distinguishes
between the legitimate and illegitimate exercise of power.” This, according to Fraser,
allows Foucault to look at power in new and interesting ways, but it also precludes
him from asking particular—and necessary—questions. Furthermore, it leads to the
simultaneous embracement of contradictory accounts of power as “both politically
engaged and normatively neutral.” Based on this assessment, Fraser concludes that
Foucault’s work “ends up inviting questions which it is structurally unequipped to
answer,” since one cannot argue for the need to resist domination without
introducing some normative notions that tell us why this is preferable.29 Along
similar lines, Whiteside argues that “if all we can do is change forms of domination
and if no form of domination can be judged less oppressive than another, then there
seems to be no ground for demanding change.”30 Thus, ultimately, the unwillingness
to distinguish between acceptable an unacceptable forms on power clearly undermines Foucault’s compelling arguments against “crude ideologism, statism and
economism.”31 In the next section I address in more detail the ways in which
Foucault’s project has influenced some contemporary understandings of another
keyword in the study of power relations: Gramsci’s “hegemony.”
Gramsci Revisited: Hegemony and/as Discourse
Foucault’s prolific mind and his thought-provoking writings earned him a very
influential place in contemporary social thought, and certainly within critical/cultural
approaches to communication. His groundbreaking link between discourse, knowledge, and power relations opened the door for all kinds of analyses focusing, for
example, on how different kinds of subjects are constituted and disciplined via
discourse.32 At the same time, and perhaps more importantly for the purposes of this
discussion, this framework also enabled a revisiting of other critical keywords, and
most notably of Gramsci’s notion of hegemony. Thus, on its way towards an
unavoidable buzzword in critical/cultural scholarship, hegemony has often been
incorporated into a Foucauldian understanding of power, even though the affinities
between the broader political projects behind these two constructs are, I would argue,
far from apparent.
As different critics have shown,33 Gramsci’s notes were far from offering a clear,
straightforward view on hegemonic processes. Not surprisingly, then, we can find
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
191
scattered elements of his different accounts throughout much of the critical/cultural
scholarship informed by the notion of hegemony. Most authors have acknowledged
the copresence of mechanisms of control within civil society and the State when
explaining hegemonic processes, although usually this has not translated into a full
embracement of the coercion + consent formula outlined by Gramsci in some of his
writings. Rather, scholars have typically opted for adopting a notion of hegemony
that emphasizes mechanisms of consent34 or coercion.35
The emphasis on the “consent” aspects of hegemonic processes is usually enabled,
implicitly or explicitly, through a Foucauldian understanding of power as “capillary,”
operating “at the lowest extremities of the social body in everyday social practices.”36
The work of so-called “Western Marxists” such as Ernesto Laclau or Louis Althusser
has also been very influential in enabling this emphasis.37 Althusser, for example,
discussed the possibility of an integrated State/civil society through his concept of
“ideological state apparatus.” His assessment also involved an upgrading of the
notion of ideology from the epiphenomenal status to a crucial aspect of the mode of
production. Ideology, in this view, is emphasized as the total environment in which
individuals are constituted (through interpellation) and operate.
Stuart Hall can be credited with introducing a similar argument into cultural
studies circles, as he addressed the possibilities that the notion of hegemony opened
for a theorization of the intersections between class and race. Drawing on Gramsci’s
view that class unity is “never assumed a priori,” but internally fragmented, Hall
invited practitioners of cultural studies to explore the conflicting interests that inform
particular group identities, as well as the centrality of contradictory discursive
formations in the (re)production of popular hegemony—a view that arguably paved
the way for a plethora of studies based on an understanding of hegemonic processes
as a negotiation of ideological give and take by which state and individuals set the
limits of what is adequate, beneficial and possible to pursue.38
This (mis)appropriation of Gramsci’s work, however, has been subject to strong
criticism by scholars who identify in it a dangerous move away from the original
Gramscian project. Richard Johnson, for example, laments how an understanding of
Gramsci within what he calls an overall poststructuralist framework has become the
dominant discourse in much contemporary social theory, mainly through a “postAlthusserian discourse theory and a Foucauldian view of power.” For Johnson, these
readings mistakenly “reduce hegemony to an operation within specifically cultural
forms (language, symbols, signs, discourses).”39
Ultimately, a progressive disconnection between hegemonic processes and
coercion practices has often translated into an important shift: from the study of
dominant ideologies and the uncovering of the processes through which they
ultimately sustain unequal relationships among particular groups, to an emphasis on
the ways in which subordinate groups may engage in “resistance” through their
appropriation of dominant discourses or, more recently, an interest in revealing ways
in which apparently disruptive representations of historically marginalized subjects
are used to gain consent for exclusionary practices in even more pervasive ways.40
Critical/cultural scholarship in communication reproduces this tendency when it
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
192 S. Martínez Guillem
proposes, for example, “retheoriz[ing] culture as an ideological struggle between and
among competing vested interests,” a goal that is linked to hypothetical analyses
where “perhaps, the scholar would develop a theoretical notion that ethnic women
resist dominant Anglo patriarchal culture in their ‘talk’ about oppressive meanings
and texts and use this construct to critically analyze the ‘culture.’”41
Through a revisiting of the notion of hegemony and its relation to power,
traditional understandings of resistance and subversion have been given new
meanings that potentially disconnect them from material emancipation, since even
though people may be “free” to appropriate and use discourses for their our own
individual purposes, thus resisting their dominant readings, these purposes, one
could argue, will always already be delimited by the systems that created them.
Nevertheless, an interest in this kind of struggle has heavily influenced and continues
to inform most contemporary critical/cultural theory and practice. Thus, as Eagleton
ironically notes, “it is [the] lack of stable identities which for some cultural theory
today is the last word in radicalism. Instability of identity is ‘subversive’—a claim
which it would be interesting to test out among the socially dumped and
disregarded.”42
Building on these critiques, in the next section I argue that, even though a focus on
the potential of everyday practices should be an important component of a
comprehensive approach to power relations in critical/cultural studies, the study of
these “micro” levels of societal relations does not necessarily imply an understanding
of all human activity as taking place within particular power/knowledge regimes—as
many current research in critical/cultural studies directly or indirectly suggests.
Instead, I propose a rethinking of the notion of dialectics as intrinsically linked to an
acknowledgment of everyday practices within an overall project that incorporates not
just a descriptive, but also an explanatory dimension, thus enabling concrete political
intervention.
Rethinking Dialectics in Power Relations
In this section, I address the possibility of incorporating the value of everyday social
practices into a critical/cultural project, while at the same time avoiding seeing power
as a normatively neutral phenomenon. In short, and drawing on the work of Antonio
Gramsci and Raymond Williams, I argue that the careful description of how power is
embedded in our most intimate practices, of showing how it operates, does not need
to be the ending point of our research endeavors. Rather, it could be a means to
theorize the need and capability to locate and oppose unequal societal dispositions.
Such shift seems especially significant in the context of a critical/cultural perspective
in communication that often explicitly states its investment in “social change.”
Rethinking Hegemony
As a first step in this rethinking effort, I argue for a (re)consideration of Antonio
Gramsci’s work as a historical, materialist, and dialectical account of power relations,
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
193
and thus for an understanding of the notion of hegemony as intrinsically tied to a
political and historically grounded context. In order to do this, I draw mostly on
Gramsci’s body of work included in the collection titled The Prison Notebooks, which
was first published posthumously in 1957. In these “notebooks,” Gramsci outlined
his reflections on the society around him, mostly affected by the consolidation of
capitalism and of absolutist regimes, a new and painful reality that, at a first glance,
seemed to disqualify previous Marxist analyses of societal processes that predicted an
inevitable revolution led by the working class.
Gramsci’s reading of Marx tried to accommodate the existence of this new social
reality, and he did so by questioning the so-called economistic aspect of Marxism
that was assumed to presuppose a clear division and a linear deterministic relationship between the “base” and the “superstructure.” In Gramsci’s words: “The claim
(presented as an essential postulate of historical materialism) that every fluctuation of
politics and ideology can be presented and expounded as an immediate expression of
the structure, must be contested in theory as primitive infantilism, and combated in
practice with the authentic testimony of Marx.”43 Gramsci thus argued for the need
to examine Marx’s empirical work in order to find a much less simplistic conceptualization of social determination.
Based on this reading of Marx, Gramsci concluded that “changing socio-economic
circumstances do not themselves ‘produce’ political changes,” but that “they only set
the conditions in which such changes become possible,” and he continued: “what is
crucial, in bringing about these changes, are the ‘relations of force’ obtaining at the
political level, the degree of political organization and combativity of the opposing
forces, the strength of the political alliances which they manage to bind together and
their level of political consciousness, of preparation of the struggle on the ideological
terrain.”44 It was in this specific context and with this specific set of goals in mind
that Gramsci developed his most important theoretical contribution to the study of
power relations: the notion of hegemony.
The radically different ways in which scholars have made use of his work
demonstrates that Gramsci’s writings are far from offering a single conceptualization
of hegemony in the Prison Notebooks. As Perry Anderson contends,45 the concept of
hegemony incorporates a fair dose of ambiguity and contradiction—thus making its
possible application and the consequent analyses inherently complicated. However,
and in spite of this, I would argue, in agreement with Hall,46 that it is precisely this
dialectical nature what makes hegemony such a useful concept when theorizing
power relations, and that the full heuristic potential of hegemony as an analytical tool
cannot be completely unleashed without taking into account its material, forcerelated, aspects. Also, as I explain below, this understanding is the one that I think
makes most sense once Gramsci’s work is examined in a holistic way.
Let us consider, fist of all, Gramsci’s particular contextual and personal
circumstances that, I would argue, strongly influenced his resolute endorsement of
what he called the “philosophy of praxis.” As Forgacs argues, Gramsci cannot be
separated from political realities “since even his widest generalizations are invariably
concerned with the investigation of the practical conditions for transforming the
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
194 S. Martínez Guillem
world by politics in the specific circumstances in which he wrote.”47 In line with his
rereading of Marxist dialectics, Gramsci argued that the philosophy of praxis
conceives the development of the structure and superstructure “as intimately
connected and necessarily interrelated and reciprocal,” and that it does not “tend
towards the peaceful resolution of the contradictions existing within history” but it
“theorizes those contradictions” instead.48 This is the framework within which
Gramsci developed his notion of hegemony.
Second, we may want to recall that Gramsci was, above all, a political activist. His
writings, therefore, had the major purpose of mobilizing what he saw as the
subordinate groups in his society in order to overcome oppressive conditions. With
this cause in mind, identifying the weak aspects of a hegemonic project was a crucial
step because, according to Gramsci, this would allow individuals to act upon these
weaknesses in order to develop an alternative hegemonic project that would better
their condition. As Morgan puts it, “the objective was to create a socialist hegemony
in Italy.”49 For Gramsci, therefore, it was important “to look at relations of force” but,
as he explained, “such analyses cannot and must not be ends in themselves […] but
acquire significance only if they serve to justify a particularly practical activity, an
initiative of will. They reveal the points of least resistance, at which the force of will
can be most fruitfully applied.”50
It seems, therefore, that the both the weak and the strong aspects of the concept of
hegemony stem from its tight association with grounded social criticism (understood
here as a reconciliation between theory and praxis). Thus, on the one hand, if
hegemony is abstracted as a theory from its historical praxis, then ambiguities
emerge. Moreover, an understanding of hegemony as dissociated from reality,
history, and ultimately from material existence defeats the ultimate purpose laid out
in Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis. If, on the contrary, hegemony is always conceived
as linked to a political project, this ambiguity turns into a dialectical strength that can
account for the contradictions embedded in our everyday practices. I would argue
that it is through this praxis-oriented, normative link that Gramsci’s work can better
inform a theory of power in critical/cultural studies.
(Re)thinking Cultural Materialism
As a second and last rethinking move, in this section I will show how explaining
Gramsci’s work in materialist, historical, and dialectical terms allows us to shed a
more comprehensive light on the contributions by Raymond Williams, another
foundational intellectual figure in cultural studies that, I would argue, has been often
ignored or too easily dismissed in critical/cultural academic circles in our discipline. I
argue that, as a continuation of Gramsci’s nuanced critique of dialectics, Williams’s
framework constitutes a prolific starting point to account for the relationship
between power dynamics and social change, mostly through an engagement with his
groundbreaking “cultural materialist” perspective (Williams, 1976).
As Aune pointed out in his account of Rhetoric and Marxism, the work of
Raymond Williams was never considered fundamental for U.S. versions of cultural
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
195
studies. For Aune, this lack of engagement stemmed from the fact that the
specificities of the U.S. context made it hard for American authors to identify with
the working class-based sense of community that Williams so enthusiastically
celebrated some times.51 The best exponent of this distant and even distrustful
relationship with Williams’s writings is Lawrence Grossberg, whose influential
account of “Strategies of Marxist cultural interpretation” arguably shaped the ways
in which the current generation of critical/cultural scholars came to understand the
(im)possibilities of critique.52
In spite of his more sympathetic interpretation of Williams’s project, and the
acknowledgment of its potential contributions to a comprehensive kind of cultural
studies in the U.S., Aune’s account ultimately presents this approach as too
preoccupied with the “fictional moment of the cultural over other elements,” a
preference that he implicitly links to a contemporary overemphasis, in critical
communication research, on “the cultural dimension of communication, especially television, film, and popular music,” together with a “drift away from class
analysis.”53 Along similar lines, Dana Cloud situates Williams’s interest in culture as
a fundamental site of production and reproduction as a bridge for a nondialectic kind
of thinking that, according to her, would eventually excise class-based relations from
critical scholarship in communication. As she puts it: “beginning with Williams’s
articulation of a ‘cultural materialist’ and his rejection of the base-superstructure
dialectic, cultural studies has on the whole focused entirely on political relations in
discourse rather than economics.”54 In what follows, I offer a slightly different
account of Williams’s framework, one that emphasizes, not a rejection, but a
rethinking of dialectics through the notion of cultural materialism, as well as the
potential contribution of such rethinking for critical/cultural approaches in
communication.
Much like Gramsci, Williams (1977) was concerned with the supposed-to-be
simplistic explanations of the relationships between the different levels of society
attributed to Marxism. He thus tried to offer an alternative reading of Marx that
would overcome the problematic “base determines superstructure” equation without
completely dismissing dialectics. Williams’s project was motivated by what he saw as
a “received” version of Marxism, and thus he argued for a different understanding of
dialectics that, still within Marxism, would allow for an exploration of distinctive
areas of society such as economics, institutions, forms of consciousness, or political
and cultural practices, not as separate from each other, but as interrelated. In his own
work, Williams strived to retake this approach as his starting point, emphasizing the
need to study “all the activities and their interrelations, without any concession of
priority to any one of them we may choose to abstract.”55 This kind of thinking
translates into Williams’s claim that the allegedly “superstructural” aspects of society
are not a mere reflection of those that have been isolated as the “base,” although, as I
will explain below, this did not necessarily imply seeing those aspects as completely
autonomous elements.
A key element in his rethinking and expanding of the notion of dialectics is
Williams’s rereading of the concept of determination. Importantly, Williams’s goal
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
196 S. Martínez Guillem
was not to get rid of the notion of determination as a whole, but to overcome its
restriction to a limiting process. As he explained, “[a] Marxism without some
concept of determination is in effect worthless. A Marxism with many of the
concepts of determination it now has is quite radically disabled.”56 He thus
reconceptualized determination as a dialectical movement through which the
economic base sets the limits and exerts pressure over other societal spheres,
whereas at the same time the cultural sphere exists not as a mere result of these
pressures, but can also react to them and exert its own influence over the “base.”
This conceptual framework, far from understating the importance of economic
factors as agents of change, leaves room for the possibility of an alternative and
even an oppositional kind of social organization that emerges from the relationship
between the different levels of society and is not just a result of particular external
conditions and the interests of a few.
In the process of developing his approach, Williams found in the work of Gramsci
an important source of inspiration, adding to it a particular sensibility for culture as a
crucial and material site of production. For Williams, the notion of hegemony was
especially useful because, just like his own framework, it incorporated a flexible
understanding of determination, refusing “to equate consciousness with the articulate
formal system which can be and ordinarily is abstracted as ‘ideology.’”57 For him,
such a view accounted for the human capacity to break through oppressive dynamics,
since it emphasized the unstable character of hegemonic processes. As Williams put
it: hegemony is “a lived system of meanings and values—constitutive and
constituting;” therefore, it is “always a process” which is historically sensitive and
constantly defended and challenged. This understanding thus incorporates the
possibility to “grasp the hegemonic in its active and formative but also its
transformational processes.”58
Hegemony, in Williams’s account, also allows for a reconciliation of macro
structures and micropractices, since it “relates whole social processes to specific
distributions of power and influence.” Williams advanced this necessary reconciliation through his notion of “cultural materialism,” which he defined as “a theory of
the specificities of material cultural and literary production within historical
materialism.”59 Thus, for Williams, incorporating the materiality of cultural practices
was a necessary step in theorizing the possibilities for change, and it was something
that classic Marxism had failed to do. As Eagleton put it, Williams’s account “will
out-Marxize the Marxists by going the whole hog, extending materialism fullbloodedly to cultural practices too.”60At the same time, however, the historical and
political determinants of cultural practices could not be overlooked.61 Rather, the
overall goal of a cultural materialist approach goal was to engage the relationships
between different societal levels in order to account for how, to use a well-known
slogan within Marxism, change happens. As Williams put it: “we cannot understand
the process of change in which we are involved if we limit ourselves to thinking of
the democratic, industrial and cultural revolutions as separate processes.”62
Williams’s understanding of communication as “a whole social process,” rather
than a separate entity that we can then relate to society, constitutes a fundamental
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
197
element of his cultural materialist framework. Thus, this conceptualization is the
starting point in his attempt to reconcile two notions that had traditionally been seen
as mutually exclusive: art and reality. As Jones puts it, Williams innovatively
challenged the reduction of culture to an “‘immaterial’ phenomenon in contrast with
real ‘activity.’”63 In this context, communication, seen as “the process of making
unique experience into common experience” is what allows art to become part of
reality.64
At a larger scale, this view allowed Williams to resolve the traditional opposition
between “the meanings of culture as ‘creative activity’ and ‘a whole way of life,’”65
arguably his major contribution to a cultural studies project.66 With this move, he
was able to place human activity at the center of his framework and emphasize
human practices as the vital processes that have the capacity to advance societies. A
“cultural materialist” perspective is thus one in which economic, social processes and
cultural symbolic ones are not mutually exclusive, where “we see language and
signification as indissoluble elements of the material social process itself, involved all
the time both in production and reproduction.”67
Williams’s sometimes misunderstood emphasis on the importance of the cultural
dimension of societies earned him critiques from the next generation of scholars in
cultural studies, and most notably from Stuart Hall—whose work has also mediated
between British and U.S. versions of cultural studies in important ways. In his classic
study of what he saw as two “incommensurable” paradigms, Hall pointed out the
split between what he labeled a “culturalist” and a “structuralist” approach to
research within Cultural Studies. A “culturalist” perspective, exemplified by “first generation” scholars such as Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, or E. P. Thompson,
“emphasized human experience and practical activity as the source of culture.” In
contrast, a structuralist perspective, advocated by a “second generation” of scholars
trained at the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Culture in Birmingham,
“stressed the structural and ideological features of culture as the ultimate conditions or
determinants of human praxis.”68
In readings such as Hall’s (see also Eagleton, in Jones, 2004), Williams is seen as
paying too much attention to experience and human praxis as opposed to structural
conditions and how they infuse these practices. As I mentioned before, the scarce
references in communication to Williams’s work, even though they serve different
purposes, share this skepticism towards an allegedly overemphasis on culture as a
material site of production. For Grossberg, for example, Williams problematically
collapses “the social into the cultural,” understood as “the structure of social
experience (which can be read off of the surface of class position).”69
Based on these critiques, it may appear like a “culturalist” approach can only touch
on the superficial levels of power relations, as its alleged prioritization on the
“cultural” manifestations in a society would seem to underestimate the importance of
its structural dispositions. However, as I hope to have shown, a closer look at this
framework reveals that, theoretically, it offers a crucial standpoint that can help us
address societal dynamics holistically, through the overcoming of a dualist perception
of the cultural and the structural as separate spheres. Reflecting on his intellectual
198 S. Martínez Guillem
trajectory, Williams referred to the focus on the “specific primacies” of culture—and
the reading of this as an idealist position—as just a needed stage in a moment when,
within received Marxism, there was no other way to conceptualize cultural practices.
As he put it:
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
What turned out to be, when developed, a materialist (but non-positivist) theory of
language, of communication and of consciousness was assigned, along the way, to
“idealism’ just because, in received Marxist theory, these activities were known to
be superstructural and dependent—so that any emphasis on their primacy (a
primacy coequal with other forms of the material social process, including those
forms which had been abstracted as “labour” or “production”) was known a priori
to be “idealist.”70
Overall, following Raymond Williams’s rescuing of the concept of culture from the
realm of the “superstructure” and its insertion into the material, productive level of
society, we can argue for and legitimate the study of those aspects of society that were
previously thought of as mere reflections of bigger, more primary dynamics and
therefore not relevant objects of analysis, while still seeing them as part of the
economy, institutions, or public policy. What a “culturalist” perspective has to offer,
therefore, is a commitment to study not just “culture’s constitutive role in making
power relations” but also “the embededness of power, including economic power, in
cultural relations.”71 Ultimately, such view can help us bridge the gap between
political/economic and cultural analyses, a project that has been identified as crucial
for the next generation of critical/cultural communication scholarship.72
Conclusions: Planting “Seeds of Life”
There are ideas, and ways of thinking, with the seeds of life in them, and there are
others, perhaps deep in our minds, with the seeds of a general death. Our measure
of success in recognizing these kinds, and in naming them making possible their
common recognition, may be literally the measure of our future.73
In this essay, I have reviewed several keywords in critical theory in an attempt to
reflect on whether they can inform a more comprehensive approach to power
relations in communication studies, and more specifically, in critical/cultural
approaches within the discipline.74 Needless to say, I am not arguing that these
should be the only important keywords to consider, nor am I suggesting that only the
authors reviewed here can help us rethink dialectics, power, and the critical project in
our discipline. Rather, my concentration on Williams, Gramsci and Foucault’s work
was motivated by what I saw as a need to reflexively historicize and push against a
current dominant trend in critical/cultural scholarship, where successive selective
readings/re-writings of particular intellectual legacies have led to what I see as
sometimes unreflective, sometimes problematic understandings of different theoretical frameworks. As a result of the mediating function of these selective readings,
Williams’s ideas have been mostly not engaged or rapidly dismissed, whereas
Gramsci’s work is often reoriented towards idealist grounds and away from
dialectical perspectives. On the other hand, Foucault’s framework, especially his
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
Rethinking Power Relations
199
later contributions, is usually (and ironically) presented as the only valid point from
which to narrate the (im)possibilities for social change in our current times.
Overall, with this rethinking exercise I hope to have shown that there is certainly
value in a “discursive turn” that points out the existence of complicated societal
process that cannot be translated into perfect formulae to predict human behavior,
and uncovers how unequal systems are reproduced with our own consent—especially
in places where a superficial look would suggest the opposite. However, I would
argue that we are still, for the most part, missing something. That something is the
ability to conceive of power dynamics in a way that allows us to envision social
transformation. Thus, even though attention to everyday, local practices can
definitely help us overcome simplistic and overdeterministic accounts of society, a
rejection of absolute values doesn’t need to imply the (absolute) rejection of all
values,75or what McLaren refers to as a substitution of the “tyranny of the whole by
the dictatorship of the fragment.”76 Instead, we might argue, the evaluation and
explanatory stages are necessary moves within any project committed to social justice
and critique.
As I think this review has shown, the theoretical contributions by Foucault,
Gramsci, and Williams can all be seen under different lights and with different
emphases. There are, importantly, similarities in their work that need to be
highlighted, most notably the motivation to overcome a binary way of understanding
the world, and more specifically, the relationship between individuals and their
societies. Thus, a common view in all three authors is that people are both shaped by
processes that they cannot control, while at the same time they possess the capacity
to act upon the world. This dialectical impulse can be seen at the core of notions such
as Williams’s “cultural materialism,” Foucault’s “discourse,” or Gramsci’s “hegemony,” although it has not always been explicitly acknowledged or emphasized.
However, I believe that the present review also reveals that each author takes this
starting assumption in different directions and with different goals in mind. This is
partly due to the array of commitments and motivations that guide their projects, as
well as to the fact that their accounts address different audiences—Williams, for
example, was embedded in the literary criticism tradition, whereas Foucault’s
account could be seen as working across various areas such as philosophy and
sociology. It is important, therefore, to reflect on how these different motivations and
their corresponding emphases may contribute to a critical/cultural project in
communication that incorporates a comprehensive theorizing of power relations.
One way to start this reflection could be to consider why these authors may have
been interested in addressing power relations. As Edward Said has wittingly
commented, “one’s concept of power is importantly shaped by the reason why one
wishes to think about power in the first place.” Said continues to argue that
Foucault’s imagination seems to be “with” rather than “against” power, in the sense
that he understands the world from the perspective of the ruling groups and is not
necessarily interested in exploring how the present conditions may be improved for
those who find themselves at a material disadvantage.77
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
200 S. Martínez Guillem
In agreement with Said, I would argue that, on the one hand, Foucault’s
framework is extremely useful when exploring how, in a given scenario, specific
processes—subjectification or disciplining, for example—are geared towards maintaining the status quo, often by means of incorporating in them the appearance of
change. As I mentioned above, most of the current research under the “critical/
cultural studies” label emphasizes these kinds of processes—and I would certainly
include some of my own work here. From this perspective, the focus is on how
structures are reproduced, and how even our own “agency” is part of that
reproduction. At the most, all we can do is be aware of this reality and, when
possible, strategically appropriate dominant practices. On the other hand, Gramsci
and Williams’s conceptual frameworks seem better equipped to account for
instability and change. Through their emphasis on constant movement and on the
transformational aspects of societal processes, they leave more room for individuals
to produce new relationships that may be liberating, instead of paralyzing any
possibility of consciousness-raising and therefore any human action that may result
in social transformation. As Chouliaraki and Fairclough argue:
we agree with the post-structuralist view that all social practice is embedded in
networks of power relations, and potentially subordinates the social subjects that
engage in it, even those with “internal” power. At the same time, we believe that
the view of modern power as invisible, self-regulating and inevitable subjecting
[…] needs to be complemented with a view of power as domination [that]
establishes causal links between institutional social practices and the positions of
subjects in the wider social field.78
Ultimately, my review tried to highlight the problems of operating within what I see
as a predominantly conformist theoretical framework, while at the same time calling
for radical activism and intervention. In this context, I would argue that recovering a
more nuanced understanding of dialectics can be a fruitful starting point for the
development of a type of critical/cultural work that retains a fundamental aspect: the
capability to understand and explain the interrelations among different societal
spheres, as well as the contradictions that they generate, against the background of a
set of normative assumptions, and incorporated into a given political project. When
put into practice, this should allow scholars to identify viable paths towards a
different kind of social of organization in which the well-being of some does not
come at the expense of the oppression of many. As Threadhold puts it, “we need a
theory of power that recognizes that our practical daily activity contains an
understanding of the world—subjugated perhaps, but present.”79 In other words,
our understanding of power needs to recognize the difficulty, not the impossibility, of
creating alternatives.
I must recognize the appeal of some aspects of Foucault’s framework for current
research agendas in general. It is undeniable that this type of account seems to fit
better with most of what happens in the world around us—although the recent
“Arab spring,” the arousal of social movements like the Spanish Indignados, the
North-American “Occupy,” or the heated student protests in countries like Chile,
Israel, the U.K. or Canada, even with all their internal contradictions, may be good
Rethinking Power Relations
201
indicators of the saturation of such model, both within and outside of the scholarly
bubble. However, I wonder if part of the attractiveness of the focus on reproductive
aspects of power and agency is the result of some kind of “trained incapacity” that
does not allow us to explore our objects of study in different ways. And I wonder, like
Raymond Williams did, if the academy, as it stands nowadays, can account for the
kinds of questions that this essay has framed as fundamental.80
Notes
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Raymond Williams, “Communications and Community,” in Resources of Hope, ed. Robin
Gable (London: Verso, 1961), 19–31.
Admittedly, this is a very broad term that encompasses many different domains of study;
see Kent A. Ono, “Critical/cultural approaches to communication,” in 21st century
communication: A reference handbook, ed. William. F. Eadie (Los Angeles: Sage, 2009),
74–81. In this paper, I use the term critical/cultural studies to refer to a current generation
of scholars, mostly U.S. based, whose work is often featured in the Division of the National
Communication Association called Critical and Cultural Studies, as well as in the journal
sponsored by this same Association: Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies.
See Rona Tamiko Halualani, S. Lily Mendoza, and Jolanta A. Drzewiecka, “‘Critical’
Junctures in Intercultural Communication Studies: A review.” The Review of Communication 9 (2009): 17–35; Raymie McKerrow, “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis,”
Communication Monographs 56 (1989): 91–111; Ono, 2009; Kent A. Ono, “Critical: A
Finer Edge.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 8 (2011): 93–96.
Rona Tamiko Halaulani and Thomas K. Nakayama, “Critical Intercultural Communication
Studies: At a Crossroads,” in The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, eds.
Thomas K. Nakayama and Rona Tamiko Halaulani (Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing,
2010), 1–16
Raymond Williams, “Hegemony and the Selective Tradition,” in Language Authority and
Criticism: Readings on the School Textbook, eds. Suzanne de Castell, Allan Luke, & Carmen
Luke (London: Falmer, 1989), 56–60.
Dana L. Cloud, “Change Happens: Materialist Dialectics and Communication Studies,” in
Marxism and Communication Studies: The Point is to Change it, eds. Lee Artz, Steve Macek,
and Dana L. Cloud (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2006), 54.
Aimee Carrillo Rowe and Sheena Malhotra, “(Un)hinging Whiteness.” International and
Intercultural Communication Annual 29 (2006): 166–92.
James Hay, “Introduction.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 10 (2013): 1–9.
Because of my specific interests as well as my limited space, my references will be limited to
two main areas in communication research: rhetoric and intercultural communication.
Dana L. Cloud, “The Materiality of Discourse as an Oxymoron: A Challenge to Critical
Rhetoric.” Western Journal of Communication 58 (1994): 141–63, 141–42.
See for example, Ronald W. Greene, “Another Materialist Rhetoric.” Critical Studies in
Media Communication 15 (1998): 21–41; Ronald W. Greene, “Rhetoric and Capitalism:
Rhetorical Agency as Communicative Labor.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 37 (2004): 188–206.
J. L. Jackson, Real Black. Adventures in Racial Sincerity (Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press, 2005); E. Patrick Johnson, Appropriating Blackness: Performance and the
Politics of Authenticity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003). Matt Wray, Not Quite
White: White Trash and the Boundaries of Whiteness (Durham, NC: Duke, 2006)
See, for example, Ono, 2009.
202 S. Martínez Guillem
[13]
[14]
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
Kirby Moss, The Color of Class: Poor Whites and the Paradox of Privilege. (Philadelphia:
Pennsylvania UP, 2003); John Preston, Whiteness and Class in Education (Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer, 2007); Simon Springer, “Neoliberalism as Discourse. Between
Foucauldian Political Economy and Marxian Postructuralism.” Critical Discourse Studies
9 (2012): 133–47.
Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Raymie E. McKerrow, “Foucault’s
Relationship to Rhetoric” Review of Communication 11 (2011): 253–71.
Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge (London: Routledge, [1969] 1972); Michel
Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York, NY:
Vintage Books, 1973[1966]); Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
(New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1977[1975]).
Mark Philp,“Michel Foucault,” in The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, ed.
Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985): 65–81, 68
In Philp, 1985, 69; See also Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1986.
Philp, 1985.
Michel Foucault, The history of Sexuality: An Introduction (London: Penguin, 1981).
Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings 1972–1977, ed.
Colin Gordon (New York, NY: Pantheon, 1980), 78–108.
Foucault, 1980, 198.
In Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982, 185.
Nancy Fraser, “Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical Insights and Normative Confusions,”
PRAXIS International, 3 (1981): 272–87.
See Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982, 10. For a summary of implications in the area of rhetorical
studies, as well as responses to these criticisms, see Dana L. Cloud, “Materiality of
Discourse,” in Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, eds. Steven W. Littlejohn and Karen
A. Foss (London: Sage, 2009).
Cloud, 1994, 143.
William Riordan, “Prolegomena to Sartre’s Materialist Dialectic: Towards a Recovery of the
Subject” (unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, 1988), 98.
Terry Threadhold, Feminist Poetics: Poiesis, Performance, Histories (London: Routledge,
1997), 60–70.
Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982, 212.
Fraser (1981, 273; 281)
Kerry H. Whiteside, Merleau-Ponty and the Foundation of Existential Politics (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 301.
Fraser, 1981, 280.
See, for example, Judith Butler, Undoing Gender (New York, NY: Routledge, 2004); John M.
Sloop, “‘A Van with a Bar and a Bed’: Ritualized Gender Norms in the John/Joan Case,”
Text and Performance Quarterly 20, 2000: 130–50.
See, for example, Perry Anderson, “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci,” New Left Review
100 (1976): 5–78.
Burnham, 1991; Condit, 1996; Cox, 1994; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Zompetti, 1997, 2008);
Peter Burnham, “Neo Gramscian Hegemony and the International Order,” Capital & Class
45 (1991): 73–93; Celeste Condit, “Hegemony, Concordance and Capitalism: Reply to
Cloud,” Critical studies in Mass Communication, 13 (1996): 382–84; Robert W. Cox,
“Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium.
Journal of International Studies 12 (1983): 162–75. Joseph Zompetti, “Unravelling Gramsci:
Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Economy,” Argumentation and Advocacy
Rethinking Power Relations
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
203
(New York, NY: American Forensic Association, 2008); Joseph Zompetti, “Toward a
Gramscian Critical Rhetoric,” Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997): 66–86;
Nicholas Thoburn, “Patterns of Production: Cultural Studies after Hegemony,” Theory,
Culture & Society 24 (2007): 79–94. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and
Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1986).
Arrighi, 1994; Aune, 2004; Cloud, 1994, 1996; Taylor, 1996). Giovanni Arrighi, The Long
Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of our Times (London: Verso, 1994);
James A. Aune, “An Historical Materialist Theory of Rhetoric,” American Communication
Journal 6 (2004): 1–17; Dana L. Cloud, “Hegemony or Concordance? The Rhetoric of
Tokenism in “Oprah” Winfrey’s Rags-to-Riches Biography,” Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 13 (1996): 115–37; Peter J. Taylor, The Way the Modern World Works:
World Hegemony to World Impasse (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1996).
Fraser, 1987, 271.
See Ernesto Laclau, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism
(London: Verso, 1977); Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes
Towards an Investigation,” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press, 1971).
Stuart Hall, “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity,” Journal of
Communication Inquiry 5 (1986): 2–24, 15. See, for example, Laclau and Mouffe, 1985. In
communication, see Condit’s notion of “social concord,” which she defines as “the active or
passive acceptance of a given social policy or political framework as the best that can be
negotiated under the given conditions,” arguing for need to emphasize the active and
voluntary role that people play in accommodating—together with the rest of political
entities—into a “best possible concord” that can incorporate the interests of a wide variety
of groups. Condit, 1994, 1996; Celeste Condit, “Clouding the Issues? The Ideal and the
Material in Human Communication,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 14 (1997):
197–200.
Richard Johnson, “Post-hegemony?: I Don’t Think So,” Theory, Culture & Society 24
(2007): 95–110, 98. See also Cloud’s response to Condit’s arguments, where she offers a
critique of a “discourse-centered appropriation of Gramsci,” arguing for the need to pay
attention to “the limits of compromises within the available conditions,” and the ways in
which “a social order remains stable by generating consent to its parameters through the
production and distribution of ideological texts that define social reality for the majority of
the people.” Cloud, 1994; 1996: 118.
Jackson, 2005; Johnson, 2003; Helene A. Shugart, “Crossing Over: Hybridity and Hegemony
in the Popular Media,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 4 (2007): 115–41.
Halaulani and Nakayama, 2010, 9.
Terry Eagleton, After Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 16.
Antonio Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York, NY:
International Publishers, 1971), 190.
Gramsci, 1971, 190.
Anderson, 1976.
Hall, 1986.
David Forgacs, The Antonio Gramsci Reader (New York, NY: New York University Press,
2000), 12, emphasis in original.
Gramsci, 1971, 193; 196.
W. John Morgan, “Antonio Gramsci and Raymond Williams: Workers, Intellectuals and
Adult Education,” Convergence 29 (1996): 61–74, 65.
Gramsci, 1971, 202; 209.
204 S. Martínez Guillem
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
Downloaded by [Susana Martinez Guillem] at 07:21 16 October 2013
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
See Aune, 1994.
Lawrence Grossberg, “Strategies of Marxist Cultural Inerpretation,” Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 1 (1984): 392–421.
See Aune, 1994, 95; 115.
See Dana L. Cloud, “The Point is to Change It: Reflections on Academics and Activism,” in
Activism and Rhetoric: Theories and Contexts for Political Engagement, eds. Jong-Hwa Lee &
Seth Kahn (London: Troubador Press, 2010), 66.
See Raymond Williams, The Long Revolution (London: Columbia University Press,
1961), 45.
See Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1977), 83.
See Williams, 1977, 109.
Williams, 1977, 110–13, my emphasis.
Williams, 1977, 5; 109.
Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology (London: Verso. 1976).
See John Higgins, Raymond Williams: Literature, Marxism and Cultural Materialism
(London: Routledge, 1999).
Raymond Williams, The Long Revolution (London: Columbia University Press, 1961), xi
Paul Jones, Raymond Williams’s Sociology of Culture (London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2004), 47.
Williams, 1961, 55.
Williams, 1961, 56.
See Aune, 1994.
Williams, 1961, 99.
Jere Paul Surber, Culture and Critique: An Introduction to the Critical Discourses of Cultural
Studies (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), 240.
Larry Grossberg, “Strategies of Marxist Cultural Interpretation,” Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 1 (1984): 392–421, 401.
Raymond Williams, “Notes on Marxism in Britain since 1945,” New Left Review 100
(1976): 81–94, 88.
See Richard Johnson, Deborah Chambers, Parvati Raghuram, and Estella Tincknell, The
Practice of Cultural Studies (London: SAGE, 2004), 146.
Ono, 2009; see also Susana Martínez Guillem and Marco Briziarelli, “We Want Your
Success! Hegemony, Materiality, and Latino in America,” Critical Studies in Media
Communication 29 (2012): 292–312; Janice Peck, “Why We Shouldn’t Be Bored with the
Political Economy Versus Cultural Studies Debate,” Cultural Critique 64 (2006): 92–126.
Raymond Williams, Culture and Society (London: Chatto & Windus, 1958).
See Ono, 2009, for a comprehensive review of critical contributions of scholars working
away from the Marxist and/or European frameworks.
See Ben Agger, Cultural Studies as Critical Theory (London: The Falmer Press, 1992).
Peter McLaren, “Multiculturalism and the Postmodern Critique: Towards a Pedagogy of
Resistance and Transformation,” Cultural Studies 7 (1993): 118–46, 207.
In Nancy Hartsock, “Foucault on Power: a Theory for Women?,” in Feminism/
Postmodernism, ed. Linda J. Nicholson (Routledge: London, 1990), 173.
Lillie Chouliaraki and Norman Fairclough, Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical
Discourse Analysis (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), 24.
Threadhold, 1997, 553.
Raymond Williams, “The Future of Cultural Studies,” in The Politics of Modernism: Against
the New Conformists, ed. Tony Pinkney (London: Verso, 1986).